The petitioner sought to quash an inquiry report rejecting sexual harassment complaints against her department chair. The court held that it cannot exercise judicial review by entering into disputed questions of fact or re-appreciating material in a detailed inquiry report by a retired judge.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No. 11402 of 2011 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 11402 of 2011
Date of Decision: November 21, 2013
Geeta Rani
…..Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and others
…..Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
-.-
Present:Mr.Harsh Kinra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.K. Hooda, Addl.A.G., Haryana. Mr.P.C. Arora, Advocate
Mr.Anurag Goyal, Advocate.
-.-
M.M.S. BEDI, J.
The petitioner through instant writ petition has sought a writ in
the nature of certiorari to quash the report of Committee dated August 4, 2010 (annexure P-5) and inquiry report annexure P-10/4. Petitioner also seeks a direction to quash the proceedings of inquires and seeks a direction to initiate criminal as well as disciplinary action against respondent No.3
Gupta Sanjay 2013.12.06 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CWP No. 11402 of 2011
[2]
who was serving as Chairman of the Chemistry Department of Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa- respondent No.2. The petitioner was working as a Lecturer in Chemistry Department of the said University. She had filed a compliant annexure P-1 alleging that respondent No.3 made indirect remarks on different occasions which fell under the parameters of “harassment at work place” warranting action as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Visakha and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and others , reported as AIR 1997 SC 3011. The complaint submitted by the petitioner regarding misbehaviour and harassment dated May 1, 2010 addressed to the Vice Chancellor reads as follows:-
“To,
The Hon'ble Vice-Chancellor,
Ch. Devi Lal University,
Sirsa.
Sub: Misbehavior and harassment by the Chairperson. R/Sir,
I want to bring to your kind notice an incident for your sympathetic consideration that:
Gupta Sanjay 2013.12.06 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CWP No. 11402 of 2011
[3]
because he was said that I (Chairman) will not allow you to register to Ph.D. course in the department.
Gupta Sanjay 2013.12.06 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CWP No. 11402 of 2011
[4]
enrolled in Ph.D. with him then said "Main teri Ph.D. nahi hone dunga".
Due to these problems I am unable to work efficiently in the Department. So I request you to take strict action against him for this disgraceful behaviour towards me before leaving this country as his leave has already been sanctioned from 7.5.2010. Hoping for favorable attitude.
Yours sincerely,
Sd/- (Gita Rani) 1.5.2010
Lecturer Department of Chemistry”,
A Committee headed by Prof. (Mrs.) Reicha Tanwar was constituted. The allegations of sexual harassment did not find weight with the Committee. Report of the Committee headed by a female, reads as follows:-
“REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE.
In the complaint made by Ms. Gita Rani, Lecturer, Department of Chemistry, against Prof. Ashok Kumar, Chairman, Department of Chemistry, she alleged that: "1. A meeting of DRC was held in the Department on 23.4.2010 p.m., I which was illegal as it was not constituted according to rule. I was also a member of DRC and not allowed to attend the meeting deliberately
Gupta Sanjay 2013.12.06 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CWP No. 11402 of 2011
[5]
because he has said that I (Chairman) will not allow you to register in Ph.D. course in the department".
Prof. Ashok Kumar in his submission before the committee has clarified that the members of the DRC are according to the University Ph.D. Ordinance where it is stated (item No.40, page 9) that non Ph.D. faculty members cannot be the member of the DRC.
"2. On 30.4.2010, when I asked to put a sample of students' project work in the Department facility of Deep Freezer, he straightaway refused me by saying that this freezer is purchased for my personal work. "
Prof. Ashok Kumar in his statement said the Deep Freezer had just been purchased and was switched on only for trial purpose. The understanding with the construction branch was that when an additional generator is installed on this line then the deep freezer can be put into regular use. Therefore, there was no question of refusing to put a sample of the students project work in the deep freezer.
“3. Today the Chairman called me in his room/office at
10.20 a.m. and said that no facility from the department will be given to you to conduct the M.Sc. (P) practical examination to be held on 3.5.10. It is pertinent
Gupta Sanjay 2013.12.06 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CWP No. 11402 of 2011
[6]
mentioned here that Dr.Vazid had already filed a complaint against the Chairperson and he is frequently pressurizing me to speak against Dr.Vazid Ali and has threatened me a dire consequences if I dared to speak against the Chairperson in nay meeting. He said "aga pher boli to isa kar dunga ke handgi sare dhore rovti". He further said that" main to teen char mahine ke liye bahar ja raha hun to mera kya bigad legi".
Prof. Ashok Kumar in his statement said that when Ms. Gita Rani has been provided all facilities to conduct the practical exam. of M.Sc. Final (Organic) probably on 30th Apri1,2010, than there is no question of denying facilities of the department on 3.5.10 for M.Sc. (Previous).
"4. It is for your information that I am living alone with my son due to some family problems. He deliberately calls me in his office again and again with bad intentions without any reason. He tried to pressurize me to join Ph.D. with him from various means.".
Prof.Ashok Kumar in his statement said that in fact he had recommended Ms.Gita's application for Ph.D. Registration in Chemistry Department of Kurukshetra and MDU, Rohtak both. Ms. Gita Rani in her statement
Gupta Sanjay 2013.12.06 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CWP No. 11402 of 2011
[7]
has also alleged that Prof. Ashok Kumar tried to influence her for Ph.D. registration with him. Through Dr.Dilbag Singh. Dr.Dilbag Singh in his statement said that he had not tried to influence Ms.Gita Rani in any way. When asked if he had called Ms.Gita Rani at her home or in the office at odd hours, he said he had never done that.
When Ms. Gita Rani was asked if Prof., Ashok Kumar had ever called her to his office in odd hours he said that No., he had never called her at odd hours. GUIDELINES AND NORMS LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME CORUT OF VAISHAKA AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. ( JT 1997(7)S.C.384).
Definitions:
For this purpose, sexual harassment includes such unwelcome sexually determined behaviour (whether directly or by implication) as:-
b). A demand or request for sexual favours;
c). Sexually coloured remarks';
Gupta Sanjay 2013.12.06 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CWP No. 11402 of 2011
[8]
e). Any other unwelcome physical, verbal or nonverbal conduct of sexual nature.
As per Guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of regarding sexual harassment, the committee is of the opinion that the complaint of Ms. Gita Rani against Prof. Ashok Kumar does not fall under the purview of sexual harassment.
Sd/- Prof (Mrs.) Reicha Tanwar. Sd/-Ms.Kumud Bansal 4.8.2010 4.8.2010 Sd/-Prof Sultan Singh Sd/-Prof. Shamsher Singh 4.8.2010 Jang Bahadur 4.8.2010 Sd/-Dr.(Mrs.)Monika Verma Sd/- Dr.(Mrs.)Deepti Dharmani
4.8.2010”
Petitioner claims that the Vice Chancellor was not satisfied with the inquiry report submitted by the Committee and was pleased to direct Sh.Hari Ram, Retired District and Sessions Judge vide letter dated October 1, 2010 to inquire into the matter. The said retired District and Sessions Judge again inquired into the mater and gave a report annexure P- 10/4, arriving at a conclusion that the acts alleged were not established to be the acts of sexual harassment as per the guidelines given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that no reliance can be placed on the allegations of the petitioner.
The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the inquiry report annexure P-10/4 is vitiated as no committee headed by a female was constituted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Gupta Sanjay 2013.12.06 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CWP No. 11402 of 2011
[9]
the inquiry has not been conducted in accordance with the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 as misconduct on the part of respondent No.3 violating Rule 3 A (e)-(Prohibition of sexual harassment of working women) as such a misconduct is subject to disciplinary action under the Rules.
This Court cannot act as an Appellate Authority to consider the validity of the decisions arrived at by the inquiry officer. I have considered the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the report is vitiated as a committee headed by lady has not inquired into the mater. It is pertinent to observe that earlier the complaint of the petitioner for sexual harassment had been considered by a Committee headed by a female, which also considered the conduct of respondent to be not falling under the purview of sexual harassment as such the allegation that the grievance of the petitioner has not been brought before a female is misconceived.
In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion
that it does not lie within the parameters of the judicial review to determine the validity of the detailed inquiry report by a person of the rank of District and Sessions Judge (Retired) and exercise powers by entering into the disputed question of fact on re-appreciation of the material which form subject matter of the report of the inquiry officer will be an act of brutum fulmen.
Dismissed.
November 21, 2013 (M.M.S.BEDI)
Gupta Sanjay 2013.12.06 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CWP No. 11402 of 2011
[10]
sanjay
JUDGE
Gupta Sanjay 2013.12.06 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can act as an appellate authority to examine the validity of a detailed inquiry report rejecting sexual harassment allegations.
Whether it lies within the parameters of judicial review to determine the validity of the inquiry report by a retired District and Sessions Judge.
Whether the petitioner's grievance regarding the absence of a female-in-charge in the subsequent inquiry is valid given a prior female-led committee study.
Geeta Rani
State of Haryana
Ashok Kumar
M.M.S. BEDI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
